Name: Cora 80 mini feuilletés
Brand: Cora
SKU: 3257983144260

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Pâte feuilletée 65% [farine de blé margarine (matières grasses de palme et de colza - eau, sel - émulsifiant : mono - et diglycérides d'acides gras - correcteur d’acidité : acide cmque) eau - sel - œufs entiers en poudre) - eau préparation déshydratée pour sauce type béchamel (lactosérum - amidon transformé - matière grasse de colza - amidon de blé - lait écrémé en poudre - sirop de glucose - épaississant : alginate de sodium protéines de lait - arômes naturels - épices) noix de Saint-Jacques*** sans corail (espèce Zygochlamys Patagonica - origine Argentine (J) - Uruguay (U) USA (S) - espèce Argopecten Purpuratus origine Pérou (P) - Chili (L) - espèce Chlamys Opercularis - origine Royaume-Uni (R) - Iles Feroe (F) - espèce Argopecten Circularis - origine Mexique (M) - pour connaître Itorigine voir la lettre apposée à côté du no de lot) - fromage de chèvre 1 - purée de tomates 1 - tomates pelées concassées au jus 1,7% (tomates - jus de tomates - sel - correcteur d'acidité : acide citrique - stabilisant : chlorure de calcium) - emmental râpé 1,5% préparation déshydratée pour sauce (lactosérum - amidon transformé sel - épaississant : gomme xanthane - poivre - muscade) - poireaux 1 - oignons - jambon cuit choix 0,7% (jambon de porc - eau - sel - arômes naturels - légumes en poudre - ferments) - roquefort fondu 0,6% (roquefort - eau - sels de fonte : citrate de sodium - amidon transformé) - préparation fromagère aromatisée 0,5% (lactosérum en poudre - crème en poudre - fromages en poudre - sel - arômes naturels) - morceaux de blocs de filet saumon Atlantique 0,4% - saumon fumé Atlantique 0,4% (saumon Atlantique 0,3% - sel) - amidon transformé de blé - chapelure (farine de blé - eau - sel - levure) basilic 0,2% - pulpe d'ail - parmesan râpé 0,1% - huile d'olive vierge extra - arômes naturels (contient crustacés - lait - poissons - mollusques) - blancs d'œufs liquides - persil - lait entier en poudre - sel - amidon transformé - poivre noir - estragon. Traces éventuelles de fruits à coque, céleri, moutarde et graines de sésame.

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (123 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, quantity, category, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (123 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Cora 80 mini feuilletés

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Cora 80 mini feuilletés

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs